c




 

Improving the method of employee training is only one of several factors critical to

achieving sustained employee performance. We

often hear about major strides companies are making to improve the delivery of
training but this change wonƞt mean much for the business unless organizational
issues are addressed, also. For example, according to a Wall Street Journal article ,
UPS is experimenting with technology that gives new drivers hands -on practice in
simulated situations before driving a truck and making deliveries for real. Jennifer
Levitz of WSJ writes:

Vexed that some 30% of driver candidates flunk its traditional training, United
Parcel Service Inc. is moving beyond the classroom to ready its rookies for
the road. In the place of books and lectures are videogames, a contraption
that simulates walking on ice and an obstacle course around an artificial
village. Based on results so far, the world's largest package -delivery company
is convinced that 20-somethingsƜthe bulk of UPS driver recruitsƜrespond
best to high-tech instruction and a chance to hone skills.

I applaud UPS for this investment in employee learning. However, I wonder what
they are doing about helping these employees understand the link between wha t
they are learning and business outcomes for the company, responding to individual
learning needs of each employee, ensuring that someone in the company continues
to provide performance feedback frequently over time, providing opportunities to
continue to practice all of the skills learned during training even months and years
after the initial orientation phase, and holding employees and their managers
accountable for their contribution to achieving business goals over the long -term.
These other organizat ional factors are just as important, if not more so, than new
games and simulations during the Ơrookieơ phase.

Posted at 09:54 AM in Organizational Learning, Training, Training Impact |

Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
eblog (0) | | Tweet This!




||



 

  
  


Leaders of BP and all of the deep water oil companies would do well to read a recent

article in ChiefExecutive.net written by alph Jacobson and Alfred A.

Marcus. The authors say that in many organizations itƞs not the problems that get
them into trouble, itƞs the paradoxes. They describe the difference in this way:

Problems may be simple or complex, but once an effective solution is

implemented, the problem is solved. For example: Should we build a new
plant? Extend our current product line? Hire a new vice president? Partner
with another organization? Paradoxes, on the other hand, are the hard core
contradictions in organization life that cannot be resolved Ɯthey must be
vigilantly balanced.

Problem solving follows a predictable pattern: Highlight an issue, gather the

facts, investigate causes, formulate solutions, and implement the answer. The
objective is to gain control. If we fail we cast blame on others and ourselves.
But what happens if there are issues for which solutions are non -existent?
Here are some examples: Should weƦ

ë|||||||||þ
  the    l  e

?
ë|||||||||!e i ew be  e 
x
e p  
ex
bee?
ë|||||||||e e e    de
e e e
?
ë|||||||||   

 be   e  e
?
I pe
 h  BP  he he 

p e  k    e k     e
p be
 be
 ge whe 

.  he, hey h 
 ge he p   x:


p 
e wh 
y e  eg  
 e p  
    whe


p 
e wh  ew
 e     e  e 
e   e. Th 
 e be
 
   he  p 
  y h   eƞ h e   .
It requires a constant balancing of the demand for safety wi th the demand for
productivity. And an awareness of the Law of Unintended Consequences .

Posted at 07:00 AM in Leadership, Organizational Learning | Permalink | Comments

(0) | TrackBack (0)

Technorati Tags: BP, leadership, organizational learning , paradox

eblog (0) | | Tweet This!

  

! 

Much of evaluation in organizations is focused on making incremental change in

programs when what is needed might be redesign of the program and the
organization as a whole. The current economic crisis presents an opportunity for all
organizations to re-examine what they are doing and how they do it. William A.
Schambra, director of the Hudson Institute's Bradley Center for Philanthropy and
Civic enewal, in speaking about nonprofit organizations said this in a speech to the
annual meeting of the Memphis -based Alliance for Nonprofit Excellence .

When times begin to get sour, we initially scramble madly to sustain all that
activity that weƞve added in the good times. Thatƞs what a lot of us have been
doing over the past year. We desperately donƞt want to let go of that new
identity weƞve developed as a sophisti cated, complex, multi-service
organization.

But slowly it dawns on us that we simply canƞt scramble fast enough to keep
it all going. We realize that we not only have to scale back staff and program,
but we have to fundamentally revisit the questions of wh at our fundamental
purpose in society truly is, and which of our activities truly reflect that
purpose.

The first impulse of managers in any organization is to find ways to sustain the
programs for which they are responsible. Whether effective or not, thi s is their
identity, their power, their span of control. They will do what they can to defend
their turf. Itƞs a natural reaction to threat. Over time, this can result in maintaining
activities and processes that are no longer needed or could be done in mo re
effective ways. I once served on the Board of Directors for a nonprofit that delivered
16 distinct programs, from adolescent group homes to foster care to Big
Brothers/Big Sisters. The agency had grown into a $12 million bureaucracy by
adding almost any social service program for which funding was available. When we
were faced with serious budget problems, our reaction was to make cuts in people
and resources in order to maintain all of the programs. After a number of painful
years of this, new Board members and a new Executive Director finally asked the
question, ƠWhat is the best and most efficient way to deliver these services to
customers?ơ In short order, the nonprofit was dissolved and all of the programs and
most of the staff found new homes in exi sting agencies in the community. We
should have asked that question sooner. This might be an extreme example, but it is
the kind of redesign that all organizations should consider from time to time.

Babak Armajani, partner in the Public Strategies Group, writes this about redesign in
government:

This is how we need to start thinking about K 2 education, health care,

corrections, and other major public service delivery systems. These systems
can be redesigned. We can get quantum leaps in improved results from
these systems even as we are spending less money on them.

What stands between us and these possibilities is our own skepticism about
whether there really is a better way and our reluctance to invest ourselves in
finding it.

Most change initiatives start with the program and try to incrementally improve what
is already being done. Armajaniƞs notion of Ơredesignơ starts with the desired
outcomes and, within available resources, designs the best way to achieve those
outcomes. Itƞs an opportunity for creativity and risk taking and finding new ways of
approaching old problems. Although human natu re can be a barrier to this kind of
change, effective leaders create an environment of safety and security where it is
possible for this kind of transformation to occur.

Posted at 07:00 AM in Evaluation, Leadership, Organization Culture, Organizational

Learning | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)

Technorati Tags: Alliance for Nonprofit Excellence , Babak Armajani, evaluation,

nonprofit, organizational learning , organizational redesign , PSG, William A. Schambra

eblog (0) | | Tweet This!

" 

#
$%&'(#

ƠƦ your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they

didn't stop to think if they should.ơ ƛDr. Ian Malcolm,

Jurassic Park

Large, complex organizations, like BP, would do well to heed the Law of Unintended
Consequences. This is the notion, attributed to sociologist obert K. Merton, that
any complex system will have outcomes that cannot be foreseen by the actors in
that system. It is not, as risk managers in BP would claim, that there is a tolerably
low probability that something undesirable (e.g., explosion on deep sea oil rig
platform) will occur; rather, the complexity of the system means something
undesirable is certain to occur.

David Brooks, in a New York Times op-ed column about the Deepwater Horizon
explosion, writes

Ʀ the real issue has to do with risk assessment. It has to do with the bloody
crossroads where complex technical systems meet human psychology.

Over the past decades, weƞve come to depend on an ever -expanding array of
intricate high-tech systems. These hardware and software systems are the
guts of financial markets, energy exploration, space exploration, air travel,
defense programs and modern production plants.

These systems, which allow us to live as well as we do, are too complex for
any single person to understa nd. Yet every day, individuals are asked to
monitor the health of these networks, weigh the risks of a system failure and
take appropriate measures to reduce those risks.

One of the explanations for why unintended consequences occur is that people fail
to see every aspect of a problem. Stephen Haines, in an article in the March/April
issue of Training Magazine, likens this to trying to solve the ubikƞs Cube by
arranging one color on one side and then moving on to arrange the next color. The
puzzle canƞt be solved this way. But that is how we tend to approach complex
situations. We deal with one element at a time rather than looking at the system as
a whole. And, as Brooks suggests, no single person is capable of u nderstanding the
total system.

In examining lessons-learned from another disaster, the Challenger space shuttle,

Malcolm Gladwell concludes that if we canƞt handle the unintended consequenc es,
maybe we shouldnƞt be in that business. He writes:

What accidents like the Challenger should teach us is that we have

constructed a world in which the potential for high -tech catastrophe is
embedded in the fabric of day -to-day life. At some point in the future-for the
most mundane of reasons, and with the very best of intentions -a NASA
spacecraft will again go down in flames. We should at least admit this to
ourselves now. And if we cannot -if the possibility is too much to bear -then
our only option is t o start thinking about getting rid of things like space
shuttles altogether.

However, the Law of Unintended Consequences isnƞt only about interaction between
humans and technology. Any complex social organization is subject to the Law.
Dubner and Levitt, authors of þreakonomics, point out that the system for doctors
treating deaf patients, the system for requiring debt relief every seven years
(sabbatical year) according to Jewish law, and the system for protecting endangered
species have all had some of the opposite effects for which they were intended. Any
large company can count on the fact that policies and procedures will have effects
that cannot be anticipated. For example, lines of communication and authority, while
important in managing productivity, can also be barriers to the right information
getting to the right people at the right time, which can have disastrous
consequences.

Posted at 07:00 AM in Organization Culture , Organizational Learning | Permalink |

Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Technorati Tags: BP, Deepwater Horizon, jurassic park, risk assessment, ubik's
Cube, systems thinking, unintended consequences

eblog (0) | | Tweet This!

) 
*+

%,
)+%


Iƞve been wondering (see post) how Toyota, the world-wide, benchmark
manufacturing company for quality and a leader in promoting continuous
improvement (The Toyota Way), suddenly finds itself responsible for the recall of
millions of cars, payer of a major fine to the U.S. government, and the brunt of late -

night TV humor. Izak Duenyas, writing in ƠThe Business Thinkerơ,

offers an explanation. He writes:

In the past, Toyota was very deliberate in adding new suppliers, developing a
close working relationship with them, and ensuring they can meet Toyotaƞs
stringent quality and on -time delivery requirements. One of the causes of the
current quality issues is that in the haste of meeting the objective of
becoming the largest car company, Toyota did not allocate (nor did it have)
sufficient internal resources to develop the kind of close working relationships
with the new suppliers that would have maintained t he expected quality
performance.

It wasnƞt a failure of ƠThe Toyota Wayơ and its Ơleanơ principles, Duenyas argues,
but rather a failure of the company to apply its own dogma consistently over the
long-term. The kind of culture that must be in place to su pport high performance
and high quality is not something that, once in place, will continue indefinitely
without constant attention and nurturing. Complacency will set in if the organization
is not vigilant, especially, as in the case of Toyota, where the accolades and awards
were flowing to them for several decades. This is a very important lesson for other
companies aspiring to implement the lean approach, or any major culture change,
for that matter.

Posted at 07:00 AM in Leadership, Organization Culture, Organizational Learning |

Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

Technorati Tags: lean, manufacturing, quality, The Toyota Way, Toyota

eblog (0) | | Tweet This!

)  
,%$%%%$%-

Surveys say that only 30% of employees are engaged in their work, 54% of
employees are likely to look for a different job as the economy improves, and 96%
of CEOs believe their companies should be doing more to measure the business
impact of learning and development programs. Other studies report evidence
that pay-for-performance programs increase productivity, diversity programs donƞt
contribute to the bottom-line, and Millennials are motivated more by flexible
schedules than by money. Every day it seems, a new measure of employee attitudes
and behavior is reported in the press. These pronouncement s are gobbled up by the
public and treated as if they are new truths. John Allen Paulos asks us to examine
the way in which these studies are done before we believe everything they say. He
writes in the New York Times Magazine :

Ʀdo we hold an outsize belief in our ability to gauge complex phenomena,

measure outcomes and come up with compelling numerical evidence? A well -
known quotation usually attributed to Einstein is ƠNot everything that can be
counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.ơ !ƞd amend it
to a less eloquent, more prosaic statement: Unless we know how things are
counted, we donƞt know if itƞs wise to count on the numbers.

Additionally, he writes that we should be wary of the methods used:

No method of measuring a societal phenomenon satisfying certain minimal

conditions exists that canƞt be second-guessed, deconstructed, cheated,
rejected or replaced. This doesnƞt mean we shouldnƞt be counting Ɯ but it
does mean we should do so with as much care and wisdom as we can
muster.

! think we rely too much on responses to a few survey questions and on counts of a
small number of isolated behaviors. That kind of data, as Paulos suggests, cannot
give us an accurate picture of the complexity of human behavior and the situations
in which people find themselves.
In many cases, only an employeeƞs story can give us the information that we need.
By Ơstoryơ, I mean the narrative of how the organization, other pe ople, and events
influenced a change in attitudes and behavior and how that change affected
business results. My experience is that success stories are more informative than
stories about failures, but both types can be useful. obert O. Brinkerhoff has
developed a method that uses success stories to evaluate the impact of training and
development programs. ené Lavinghouze writes about using success stories to
evaluate the progress of disease prevention programs. Stories about people and
their experiences often are more accurate and more useful then things that can be
counted.

Posted at 07:00 AM in Evaluation, Organizational Learning | Permalink | Comments

(2) | TrackBack (0)

Technorati Tags: evaluation, learning, measurement, research

eblog (0) | | Tweet This!

)" 


.'


As we come out of the recession and companies prepare for hiring and growth, the
level of trust in a companyƞs culture will have a lot to say about whether that
organization will be successful or not. Without trust, employees become what Judy
Bardwick, in her article titled "The High Cost of Mistrust," calls actively disengaged.
She writes:

The absence of trust is not simply passive Ɯthat something is missing.

Instead, in the vacuum of trust, mistrust rushes in and fills the void. Mistrust
is dangerous and expensive. It means people expect the worst and behave in
line with that. ules to control behavior proliferate, but they are inevitably
ineffective because only s hared values and trust can really govern behavior.
In the face of mistrust, cooperation and teamwork are merely slogans
shouted out by executives in the face of increasing narcissism and
territoriality. Mistrust means everyone watches their back and not an yone
elseƞs.

And once trust is lost, it is very difficult to earn back. There are exceptions.
Burlingham, editor-at-large for Inc. Magazine, writes about a company that had a
culture of Ơtrust and trackơ, lost it, and is now getting it back. Nickƞs Pizza & Pub,
with two locations in the Chicago suburbs, has an employee turnover rate of just
20% in an industry where 200% is typical and has a net operating profit of between
14% and 18%. But the owner, Nick Sarillo, became sidetracked for a period of time
while he was trying to expand into Chicago, and let his systems break down. In the
void, his managers created a command-and-control environment that led to costs
increasing beyond an acceptable level. Burlingham writes:
 Te e
  
  
e
 
 
e    

e
   be  e  b 

 
 . "M  e  e 

 
   ' e e b  e e e w    

S   . e e      e. ! e e
e ee  e
 . B e  
 e     e e ee   e    
     e e
    . Y     

     e
      e

. !'   e
e  ee
e. We   
e e

e
be  ee e be   e

 ' 

e.

S  
ee     exee
e     eƞ

e  e be
e


 b. ! 
 e
 ee  ƞ   b . e    be e
 e b  e e    

ee b e ee     
e e e      e ee    
 e. !

 e   
  Ơ
e e e
eơ  e e
ee 
e e
e  e ee 
e  
e e 
 
e  .

P e  08:00 AM  Le e O z   Ce O z    Le  |

Pe
 | C

e (0) | 
B
 (0)

e
    :

 b
e e e

e e e
e e e


eb  (0) | | ee !

c
  
/0
 1230
4c5*#6)

a
    
 
   

    

   
!



 



        

 
 



     
   
 

 
  
 !"a
 # 
! 
    
  

 $% 
   


 
 &
   % 

No one can deny that online programs offer a substantial cost savings over in -person
training and conferences. The authors write:

Members of the training profession often debate the hard and soft
performance gains from employee training in todayƞs worplace but on one
subject there is no argument. As much as 40 cents of every dollar spent on
in-person training goes to travel and lodging costs studies sh ow. Avoiding
that expense should be a primary goal of any learning organiation.

The single most effective way to eliminate in -person training related costs is
to replace classroom instruction with online training. A simple RO! analysis of
the savings can underscore the point within your own organiation.
The problem with this argument is that it implies that all Web -based training and
conferences are superior to all in -person events. The important question is not, ƠIs
online better (or cheaper) than in -person?ơ The important question is, ƠWhat types
of learning interventions for what results and under what circumstances are more
effective?ơThis could include Web -based only, in-person only, blended or a multitude
of variations within and among each of these broad categories. If I want employees
to know the new rules and regulations for FDA compliance, maybe an online
program will be sufficiently effective to communicate to them what they need to
know. However, if I want those employees to develop good teamwor k skills then a
totally Web-based program, while efficient, is not likely to get the business results I
need. It all depends on what results you want, what you want people to learn, and
the organizational circumstances of that learning.

In fact, when the argument shifts to results from online programs, the authors canƞt
help disagreeing with themselves. They quote Jack Phillips:

ƠOur studies have shown that participants in e -learning programs are less
likely to follow through than in an instructor -led program,ơ notes Jack Phillips,
Ph.D., chairman of the ROI Institute and a renowned expert on accountability
and evaluation. ƠIn an instructor -led process there is often a commitment
made between the participant and the instructor that might increase the
likelihood of participants applying what was learned,ơ he says.

However, in this quote, Phillips seems to be making the same mistake as the
elearning-is-always-better folks in suggesting that instructor -led programs always
have better results (follow-through). It always depends on what results you want
and under what circumstances. An instructor-led (in-person) program that doesnƞt
incorporate the 5As , isnƞt likely to have any greater follow -through than an Ơe-
learningơ program. And regarding the lower -cost argument: a Web-based program
that achieves no business results can be more costly in terms of ROI than an in -
person program that achieves at least some business results.

Posted at 09:50 AM in Organizational Learning, Training | Permalink | Comments (2)

| TrackBack (0)

Technorati Tags: conferencing, e-learning, elearning, online, ROI, training, web-

based

Reblog (0) | | Tweet This!

c
 

 
Improving the method of employee training is only one of several factors critical to

achieving sustained employee performance. We

often hear about major strides companies are making to improve the delivery of
training but this change wonƞt mean much for the business unless organizational
issues are addressed, also. For example, according to a Wall Street Journal article ,
UPS is experimenting with technology that giv es new drivers hands-on practice in
simulated situations before driving a truck and making deliveries for real. Jennifer
Levitz of WSJ writes:

Vexed that some 30% of driver candidates flunk its traditional training, United
Parcel Service Inc. is moving beyond the classroom to ready its rookies for
the road. In the place of books and lectures are videogames, a contraption
that simulates walking on ice and an obstacle course around an artificial
village. Based on results so far, the world's largest package -delivery company
is convinced that 20-somethingsƜthe bulk of UPS driver recruitsƜrespond
best to high-tech instruction and a chance to hone skill s.

I applaud UPS for this investment in employee learning. However, I wonder what
they are doing about helping these employees understand the link between what
they are learning and business outcomes for the company, responding to individual
learning needs of each employee, ensuring that someone in the company continues
to provide performance feedback frequently over time, providing opportunities to
continue to practice all of the skills learned during training even months and years
after the initial orient ation phase, and holding employees and their managers
accountable for their contribution to achieving business goals over the long -term.
These other organizational factors are just as important, if not more so, than new
games and simulations during the Ơro okieơ phase.

Posted at 09:54 AM in Organizational Learning, Training, Training Impact |

Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

eblog (0) | | Tweet This!

c
 
$! 

6

With over 11,000 business books being published each year, the task of deciding
which books to spend your valuable time reading can be overwhelming. Yet, book
reading is a very important method of learning and self -development and should be
part of any leader's routine. For some guidance on sorting through nearly a 1,000
books per month, see Wally Bock's blog post, "Leadership Development: Starting
Your Personal eading Program," which reports useful advice from Todd Stattersten,
co-author of The 100 Best Business Books of All Time: What They Say, Why They
Matter, and How They Can Help You.

Of course, anyone who reads (or writes) business books will find something to
quibble about in Stattersten's recommendations. For example, my list would have
William Bridges' Transitions and Chris Argyris' Overcoming Organizational Defenses .
And for a list of some of the classics that should be considered, see The Best
Business Books Ever: The 100 Most Influential Business Books You'll Never Have
Time to ead by the Editors Of Perseus Publishing. Also, 800ceoread is a useful
resource for information about the latest business books.

The sad fact of the matter is that many business books are bought, but few are
read, and even fewer actually contribute to improved performance of leaders and
managers. It is not enough to read these rich tomes of wisdom. Most of us must
couple our reading with discussions of the ideas with others and practice, practice,
practice of the application of ideas before reading a book can shape our behavior.

Posted at 08:07 AM in Leadership Development, Organizational Learning | Permalink

| Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)

eblog (0) | | Tweet This!


# 7 
/6 )
1)*4,+#
-

Employee survey data is often collected but not used, at least not in any significant
way. It has been my experience with employee surveys that once I have reported
my findings to senior management, rarely is anything more done with the data.
They might disseminate a high level summary of the results, but there is little
attempt to help employees understand and learn from the data . Not only is that a
waste of time, money, and effort, but itƞs a waste of an opportunity to improve
performance and it erodes trust between management and employees.

We should be making raw data available to employees so that they can tell us what
it means. Instead, managers keep the data to themselves as if it belongs to them. I
believe employ ee survey data belongs to the respondents. They answer our
questions with the implicit understanding that their answers will be used to make the
organization more successful and a better place to work. If itƞs their data, then they
should be allowed to loo k at it, manipulate it, and interpret it.

David Zinger, in his employee-engagement blog, writes:

It seems to me that we fear being open about our data an d sharing our data
with the very people who create it. We can do better ƛ we must do better ƛ if
we have an authentic desire to have our data move from a hoarded collection
to a vehicle of authentic engagement.

I agree with Zinger that fear is part of the reason why raw data is not shared.
Managers fear what the data will say (i.e., make the manager will look bad), what
employees will say about the data, and how people outside of the organization will
interpret the findings. However, I think that control is another part of the reason.
Managers want to be in control and they assume that giving the raw data to
employees will diminish their control over the situation. What they donƞt realize is
that it could have the opposite effect.

Making data more accessible to employees is in line with a plea by Tim Berners-Lee,
inventor of the World Wide Web , in a Pecha Kucha-style TED presentation (see
video). He argues that if people would make data widely available, other people
would make sense of it in ways that would add value to that data. This is what we
need to do in organizations with employee survey data. We have every reason to
believe that if the raw data is available to employees, they will look at it in new and
different ways which will contribute to organizational learning and employee
engagement.

Posted at 01:21 PM in Employee Engagement , Evaluation, Organizational Learning |

Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

Technorati Tags: employee engagement , employee survey, organizational learning ,

pecha kucha, tim berners-lee

eblog (0) | | Tweet This!